Thanks, but I'd rather not be endangered, injured or killed, however big the payout.Turquoise wrote:
If this endangers other people not involved in their decisions, those people or their relatives can sue or press charges.
Fuck Israel
And that sir, is where we differ.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thanks, but I'd rather not be endangered, injured or killed, however big the payout.Turquoise wrote:
If this endangers other people not involved in their decisions, those people or their relatives can sue or press charges.
Nonsense, surely the market and the courts could handle the repercussions. Just ask John.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thanks, but I'd rather not be endangered, injured or killed, however big the payout.Turquoise wrote:
If this endangers other people not involved in their decisions, those people or their relatives can sue or press charges.
of course. just look at post-soviet russia today - it's all working just fine. oh, wait...Turquoise wrote:
Nonsense, surely the market and the courts could handle the repercussions. Just ask John.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thanks, but I'd rather not be endangered, injured or killed, however big the payout.Turquoise wrote:
If this endangers other people not involved in their decisions, those people or their relatives can sue or press charges.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Gazprom is a shining beacon of industry, and labor rights are for hippies.Shahter wrote:
of course. just look at post-soviet russia today - it's all working just fine. oh, wait...Turquoise wrote:
Nonsense, surely the market and the courts could handle the repercussions. Just ask John.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thanks, but I'd rather not be endangered, injured or killed, however big the payout.
John has always maintained that safety laws that prevent you from harming someone else through negligence should exist. I would bet that he supports seatbelt laws (as I do), since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield.Turquoise wrote:
Nonsense, surely the market and the courts could handle the repercussions. Just ask John.
Yes, but you should design a stronger windshield if that's your worry -- self-determination and all.SenorToenails wrote:
John has always maintained that safety laws that prevent you from harming someone else through negligence should exist. I would bet that he supports seatbelt laws (as I do), since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield.Turquoise wrote:
Nonsense, surely the market and the courts could handle the repercussions. Just ask John.
How can YOU not wearing a seatbelt harm someone else?SenorToenails wrote:
John has always maintained that safety laws that prevent you from harming someone else through negligence should exist. I would bet that he supports seatbelt laws (as I do), since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield.Turquoise wrote:
Nonsense, surely the market and the courts could handle the repercussions. Just ask John.
Nah, seatbelt laws are nanny state bs. How many times has someone been killed by a body flying through a windshield? I'd put the number as miniscule.SenorToenails wrote:
John has always maintained that safety laws that prevent you from harming someone else through negligence should exist. I would bet that he supports seatbelt laws (as I do), since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield.Turquoise wrote:
Nonsense, surely the market and the courts could handle the repercussions. Just ask John.
If people want to fuck up their own lives, have at it. If they put other people in danger by driving under the influence it's a whole other ballgame.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Seat belts were actually implemented by Ford to give them a competitive advantage. Shit if someone wants to be a dumbass and not wear a belt and kill himself, that's his own stupidity.SenorToenails wrote:
John has always maintained that safety laws that prevent you from harming someone else through negligence should exist. I would bet that he supports seatbelt laws (as I do), since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield.Turquoise wrote:
Nonsense, surely the market and the courts could handle the repercussions. Just ask John.
racist.JohnG@lt wrote:
Nah, seatbelt laws are nanny state bs. How many times has someone been killed by a body flying through a windshield? I'd put the number as miniscule.SenorToenails wrote:
John has always maintained that safety laws that prevent you from harming someone else through negligence should exist. I would bet that he supports seatbelt laws (as I do), since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield.Turquoise wrote:
Nonsense, surely the market and the courts could handle the repercussions. Just ask John.
If people want to fuck up their own lives, have at it. If they put other people in danger by driving under the influence it's a whole other ballgame.
They did. It's called an airbag.Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but you should design a stronger windshield if that's your worry -- self-determination and all.SenorToenails wrote:
John has always maintained that safety laws that prevent you from harming someone else through negligence should exist. I would bet that he supports seatbelt laws (as I do), since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield.Turquoise wrote:
Nonsense, surely the market and the courts could handle the repercussions. Just ask John.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I'm with john, sitting in a speeding taxi as it goes over speedbumps at 35mph with no belt on is pretty much the best free thrill.
the whole getting drinking and getting killed is one way to weed out the idiots ......... but one innocents are caught in the middle thats when we need to take a long hard look at the cause
I'm not advocating for built breath analyzers in every car ( forcing me, someone that doesn't drink, to blow into every time I want to start my truck ) but perhaps in the future as technology advances and prices come down .... we can develop something that can prevent a vehicle from starting
I'm not advocating for built breath analyzers in every car ( forcing me, someone that doesn't drink, to blow into every time I want to start my truck ) but perhaps in the future as technology advances and prices come down .... we can develop something that can prevent a vehicle from starting
There will always be ways around it sere, always.
Where did John mention anything about race?lowing wrote:
racist.JohnG@lt wrote:
Nah, seatbelt laws are nanny state bs. How many times has someone been killed by a body flying through a windshield? I'd put the number as miniscule.SenorToenails wrote:
John has always maintained that safety laws that prevent you from harming someone else through negligence should exist. I would bet that he supports seatbelt laws (as I do), since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield.
If people want to fuck up their own lives, have at it. If they put other people in danger by driving under the influence it's a whole other ballgame.
lowing was being facetious He does have a sense of humor from time to time.Macbeth wrote:
Where did John mention anything about race?lowing wrote:
racist.JohnG@lt wrote:
Nah, seatbelt laws are nanny state bs. How many times has someone been killed by a body flying through a windshield? I'd put the number as miniscule.
If people want to fuck up their own lives, have at it. If they put other people in danger by driving under the influence it's a whole other ballgame.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
oh of course .... but if we cut down the percentage .... at least it would be a step in the right directionjord wrote:
There will always be ways around it sere, always.
the best I can come up with ... is sensors in the steering wheel that picks up the alchol seeping from the pours in your hand .... detects it, disables the igination
That's why you get a DD.SEREMAKER wrote:
oh of course .... but if we cut down the percentage .... at least it would be a step in the right directionjord wrote:
There will always be ways around it sere, always.
the best I can come up with ... is sensors in the steering wheel that picks up the alchol seeping from the pours in your hand .... detects it, disables the igination
If YOU became a projectile, you can harm someone else. Though, John is right that this probably never happens....so nevermind that argument.lowing wrote:
How can YOU not wearing a seatbelt harm someone else?
My personal belief is that seatbelts are like motorcycle and bicycle helmets--you're safer when you wear them, but meh...I see the argument on both sides but I will force anyone in my car to wear a seatbelt (since I support their use). I wear a seatbelt, but not a bicycle helmet. If I had a motorcycle, I would wear a motorcycle helmet even though in a catastrophe, I'd still be braindead (in organ transplantation work, they call them 'donorcycles').
Its a lot of effort, money and time for what really is a small number of deaths in the bigger picture. 250000 people die daily, with that figure its hard to care enough about a few accidental deaths...
Really the only other people you endanger as a projectile are the other occupants of the car
lol at pinball
lol at pinball
Serious Flex
Oh see, I thought you were going to make an argument that was in the realms of reason and statistically probable.SenorToenails wrote:
If YOU became a projectile, you can harm someone else. Though, John is right that this probably never happens....so nevermind that argument.lowing wrote:
How can YOU not wearing a seatbelt harm someone else?
My personal belief is that seatbelts are like motorcycle and bicycle helmets--you're safer when you wear them, but meh...I see the argument on both sides but I will force anyone in my car to wear a seatbelt (since I support their use). I wear a seatbelt, but not a bicycle helmet. If I had a motorcycle, I would wear a motorcycle helmet even though in a catastrophe, I'd still be braindead (in organ transplantation work, they call them 'donorcycles').
Call me after nationalized healthcare starts.lowing wrote:
How can YOU not wearing a seatbelt harm someone else?SenorToenails wrote:
John has always maintained that safety laws that prevent you from harming someone else through negligence should exist. I would bet that he supports seatbelt laws (as I do), since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield.Turquoise wrote:
Nonsense, surely the market and the courts could handle the repercussions. Just ask John.
We'll chat.
He didn't, and I couldn't argue against what he posted, so I thought I would do the next best thing and dismiss his argument as racist. It is accepted for everyone else, so I thought I would try it on... and it worked!! He has no defense on being called a racist for his opinions on sealtbelts, and even if he did, I reserve the right to dismiss it and ignore him on the grounds that he IS a racist, and will not stoop so low as to engage in debate with him.Macbeth wrote:
Where did John mention anything about race?lowing wrote:
racist.JohnG@lt wrote:
Nah, seatbelt laws are nanny state bs. How many times has someone been killed by a body flying through a windshield? I'd put the number as miniscule.
If people want to fuck up their own lives, have at it. If they put other people in danger by driving under the influence it's a whole other ballgame.